Dabaghyan Artak, Salvage vs. Knowledge: Armenian Ethnography Across the Soviet Times. – F....

Exploring the Edge of Empire Soviet Era Anthropology in the Caucasus and Central Asia All too often, Western scholars studying the Caucasus and Central Asia show a striking disinterest in, and occasionally even distaste for, knowledge generated lo-cally. The anthropology of the Soviet era is often dismissed in toto as a fabrication of communist ideology and/or a purely descriptive and anti-theoretical endeavour. These assumptions greatly hinder communication between regional experts and be-tween disciplinary specialists.

This book is an attempt to overcome this problem by re-evaluating Soviet an-thropological work in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The contributors include scholars from these regions as well as others from Western countries. In addition to authors with first-hand experiences of Soviet era anthropology, the volume presents the voices of several younger scholars, as their reflections on the discipline’s past will matter for its future in the regions.

The book is divided into five parts. The first part is devoted to the general framework of socialist anthropology in the Caucasus and Central Asia and scruti-nizes relations between Soviet academic centres and peripheries. The second part deals with studies of collective farms and engagements with modernity in post-Stalinist Soviet anthropology. In the third part, two interviews with key “participant observers” and leading contributors to Soviet and post-Soviet anthropology bring in first-hand experiences and personal reflections. The final two parts of this book pre-sent the making of national schools of ethnography and related sciences in the Cau-casus, followed by explorations of the contributions of some outstanding individuals and the institutional and/or political constraints within which they worked in Central Asia.

The topics range from discussion of the legacy of Soviet-era anthropology and application of theories of ethnos and so-called survivals to the impact of disci-plinary traditions stemming from pre-Soviet times. The chapters bring out striking differences between the two large regions considered; they also draw attention to variation within these regions, and between different sub-disciplines of anthropol-ogy. The intricate histories of local research traditions subjected to strict controls contribute to a better understanding of the ways in which the social sciences interact with ideology. Chronologically, the book spans the whole epoch of the Soviet-style anthropology from its inception in the 1920s to its aftermath in a new century.

Halle Studies in the Anthropology of Eurasia

General Editors: Chris Hann, Thomas Hauschild, Richard Rottenburg, Burkhard Schnepel Volume 25

Florian Mühlfried and Sergey Sokolovskiy (eds.)

Exploring the Edge of Empire

Soviet Era Anthropology in the Caucasus and Central Asia

<publisher’s name and location>

Cover Photo: Lenin monument at the Kattasay dam in Sogd region (former Leninabad), Tajikistan (2010) (Photo: Sergey Abashin).

Contents Acknowledgements ix Notes on Transliteration xi 1 Introduction: Soviet Anthropology at the Empire’s Edge 1 Florian Mühlfried and Sergey Sokolovskiy Theoretical Frameworks and their Practical Implications 19 2 Soviet Ethnography: Structure and Sentiment 21 Tamara Dragadze 3 Survival Strategies: Reflections on the Notion of Religious ‘Survivals’ in Soviet Ethnographic Studies of Muslim Religious Life in Central Asia 35 Devin DeWeese 4 Heroes of Theory: Central Asian Islam in Post-War Soviet Ethnography 59 John Schoeberlein Collective Farm Studies 81 5 Ethnographic Views of Socialist Reforms in Soviet Central Asia: Collective Farm (Kolkhoz) Monographs 83 Sergey Abashin 6 From Collective Farm to Islamic Museum? Deconstructing the Narrative of Highlander Traditions in Dagestan 99 Vladimir Bobrovnikov Interviews 119 7 Interview with Sergey Aleksandrovich Arutyunov 121 8 Interview with Anatoly Mikhailovich Khazanov 127

vi FLORIAN MÜHLFRIED AND SERGEY SOKOLOVSKIY

The Making and Functioning of National Schools 149 9 Salvage versus Knowledge: Armenian Ethnography Across Soviet Times 151 Artak Dabaghyan 10 Soviet-Era Anthropology by Azerbaijani Scholars 175 Aliagha Mammadli 11 The Reception of Marr and Marrism in the Soviet Georgian Academy 197 Kevin Tuite 12 Anthropology at its Margins: Essentialism and Nationalism in Northwest Caucasian Studies 215 Igor Kuznetsov Individual Contributions and their Political Constraints 235 13 Iakubovskii and Others: Canonizing Uzbek National History 237 Alisher Ilkhamov 14 Ol‘ga Sukhareva and the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan 259 Olga Naumova 15 Tragedy of a Soviet Faust: Chaianov in Central Asia 275 Alexander Nikulin Epilogue 295 16 Description and (Re)Construction in Soviet-Era Anthropology 297 Levon Abrahamian Appendix 1: List of Dissertations in Armenian Ethnography Defended in and after the Soviet Era 313 Appendix 2: Ethnology and Anthropology Chairs at Russian Universities 323

CONTENTS vii

Contributors 329 Index 331

Chapter 9 Salvage versus Knowledge: Armenian Ethnography Across Soviet Times

Artak Dabaghyan

Our destiny is to collect the materials now because their scarcity makes scientific studies impossible, and beyond this, there would be no lack of time for investigations. We will collect the stones and will trust to those who come next to create the building of our national identity and to draw the lines of human evolution.

Yervand Lalayan, ‘From Publisher’ The many deficiencies of Soviet Armenian ethnography have various expla-nations, and most of them are beyond the purview of this chapter.1 In my understanding, they would be better treated not as partialities brought about by the ‘sovietness’ of their historical context — eventually such an approach leaves us uncertain about the achievements of local ethnographic and cul-tural study. On the other hand, there is no need to either veil the imperfec-tions of Armenian ethnography in the past or to omit the expressions of self-constraint, partially produced by the historical context of the discipline’s development before and after the sovietization of Armenia.

Both externally- and self-imposed restrictions on Armenian ethnogra-phy suggest the persistence of an innate opposition between paradigms of ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Salvage’. These words are probably too known and outworn, but I have not found a better term to describe the corollary relations

1 This chapter was first presented at the ‘Socialist Era Anthropology in the Caucasus and Central Asia’ workshop at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle/Saale, April 23-24, 2009. My thanks go to Florian Mühlfried for inviting me to attend the workshop, to Suren Hobosyan for providing me the archive of Deren Vardumian, to everyone who participated in discussions in Halle/Saale, and to my colleagues at the Institute of Archae-ology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia for their continuous support in collecting materials. I am especially grateful to Sergey Sokolovskiy, Ara Sanjian, Levon Abrahamian, and Benjamin White for their patience, assistance in improving the English text, and many insightful comments on the earlier drafts of this chapter. All remaining errors herein are my responsibility.

152 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

between two most powerful intellectual currents in the history of Armenian ethnography, which gained striking importance in Soviet years. The para-digmatic value given to them in this chapter means that, in my opinion, neither ‘knowledge’ nor ‘salvage’ are ‘conceptually separable from our relationships and group memberships, the social dimensions of our lives’ (Barth 2002: 2). ‘Knowledge’ in this context is only ‘ethnographic’, but worked to a transmittable format as a dataset with multiple interpretations, many of which may be at variance with others. Taken as a paradigm, ‘knowledge’ may embrace the whole discipline and the adjacent sciences, as well as ‘the characteristic media and representations in which it is cast and communicated, and the social organization within which its activities take place’ (Barth 2002: 9).2 So, because there are no context-free sciences, ‘knowledge’ as a paradigm varies in certain circumstances. Some of these circumstances, like those that have brought ‘salvage’ or ‘rescue’ ethnogra-phy and archaeology to the fore, explicated general values of certain socie-ties. In the ethnographic context, the ‘salvage’ paradigm is nested in the ‘chronic problem of ethnography, namely, the impossibility of being omni-present in the field-study community’ (Hanchett 1978: 618), and this makes the parity of ‘salvage’ and ‘knowledge’ observable in at least the individual experiences of ethnographers, in the ‘habitus’ of ethnographic work. Ethnography in the Early Soviet, Late Imperial, and Early Impe-rial Periods More than two decades after the sovietization of Armenia, Stepan Lisitsian (1865-1947) wrote in a letter addressed to the higher authorities of the then-Armenian SSR: ‘It is ridiculous to say that in the whole of Armenia, only me, a 78-year-old man, and one or two young associates [in the State History Museum of Armenia in Yerevan] are engaged in ethnography. With all our devotion it is impossible to embrace the entirety of current problems to be tackled by the ethnographers of Armenia’ (Vardanian 2005: 407-409).

Although Stepan Lisitsian was not literally alone in the field through the first decades of Soviet rule, the state of ethnography described in his letter is in sharp contrast to the fact that the Armenian Ethnographical Asso-ciation (founded in 1906), with its headquarters in Tiflis (Tbilisi) and with

2 These references to Fredrik Barth’s famous lecture on anthropology of knowledge do not mean that I accept the author’s idea about the coherent transformability of the elements of folk knowledge to scientific accounts. I use the word ‘knowledge’ without any novel appeals or concessions to ‘lore’ and as a synonym for scientific (multi-disciplinary) data and findings, with all related forms of extracting them (2002: 8-10).

SALVAGE VERSUS KNOWLEDGE 153

branches in many other towns of Transcaucasia, had 174 members in 1914.3 In a brief article (1936), published long before his letter, Lisitsian thoroughly described the activities and plans of Soviet Armenian ethnography, specifi-cally mentioning the study of the cultural traits of the refugee population from western Armenia. Although he expressed a casual interest in the im-proving living conditions of Armenian kolkhoz peasantry, Lisitsian was ultimately preoccupied with rescuing a vanishing past in difficult circum-stances. 4

In this chapter, I analyze data from a series of Armenian-language ethnographic research programs and questionnaires in order to trace the changing agenda in Armenian social and cultural studies. These print in-structions, especially the two most detailed of them, penned by Khalatian (1887) and Lisitsian (1946), were intended by their authors as guides to standardize already gathered ethnographic materials (cf. Petrosyan 2008). Unlike one of their western analogues, the British Notes and Queries, the 1843-1951 issues of which reflect ‘an increasing sophistication of the ethno-graphic process, [...] linked with its increasing professionalization’ (Stocking 2001: 202), the Armenian questionnaires, published over a seventy year period spanning the late imperial and early Soviet years, consistently re-ferred to a limited scope of ethnographic topics. Lalayan’s (1896b, 1907) and Zelinski’s (1898a, 1898b) additions to Khalatian’s research program only tempted further extension of rigorous ethnographic recording to more elements of traditional culture. But owing to the disastrous effects of World War I and the great systemic changes of the next two decades, the expansion of ethnographic works, so expected and solicited by the authors of these questionnaires, did not occur in their lifetime. The last Armenian language ethnographic questionnaire, which Lisitsian saw published when he was 80 years old, recuperated roughly the same range of topics prioritized in the questionnaires from 1887-1906. In other words, by the mid-Soviet period, the agenda of Armenian ethnography, which was formulated over the last quarter of nineteenth century, was still awaiting answers. Therefore, trying to

3 Yervand Lalayan (1867-1931) and Khachik Samuelian (1873-1940), both of whom served on the editorial board of Azgagrakan handes, were also active, although Lalayan was mainly engaged in museum work, trying to arrange the collections of the Armenian Ethnographic Society, which he managed to move from Tbilisi to Yerevan, and to recruit a new set of enthusiasts in the provinces. From 1925 to 1930, Lalayan headed the voluntary organization of kraevedy (regional history researchers). Samuelian, who was prosecuted by the Tsarist Government for being a member of the Social Democratic Party in the early 1900s, became the head of the State Archive of Armenia and lectured in Armenian cultural studies and atheism at the Yerevan State University. 4 Lisitsian’s most extensive monograph (1969) was provoked by a 1931 earthquake in the highland Zangezur (Syunik) province.

154 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

summarize the legacy of the preceding pre-Soviet ethnographic research on Armenians in his questionnaire, Lisitsian did not seen any need to modify the evolutionist standpoint of his predecessors. 5

One of these predecessors was Grigor Khalatian, who was more a classical orientalist than an ethnographer. His research program of 1887 appeared after his return from Germany, where he most likely would have encountered the völkerkundliche theses during his two years studying in German universities (Nazinian 1985: 16-20).6 Similar permeations of certain elements of Western human sciences into Armenian studies are easily dis-cernable in the course of detachment of ethnographic science from the broad corpus of oriental studies throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As the orderly and practically arranged registration of new Russian imperial domains was superseding the earlier travelogues (which were mostly written by foreigners) and chronicles (recorded by locals), emerging ethnographic knowledge about the Armenians had to reproduce the approaches invented by the early German academicians employed by the Russian Tsarist gov-ernment for description of illiterate Siberian peoples (Vermeulen 2008: 13-26, 99-159, 271-85). The coarseness of further penetration of such ‘ethnog-raphy’ has been observed by many recent historians of imperial Rus-sian/Soviet ethnography and anthropology (Clay 1989; Hirsch 2005; Khachaturian 2009; Knight 2000; Marshall 2006: 120-130; Martin 2000). Armenians, Georgians, and several other peoples of European Russia, with their own literacy and ensuing possibilities for earlier development of local ethnographic traditions, had to adopt and heavily lean on this metropolitan paradigm. The latter was not void of attractive features: it could serve for Linnaean type classifications of statistical, geographical, linguistic, ethno-graphic, and folklore materials first collected in Armenian-populated villages and towns of the empire in the second quarter of nineteenth century. It secured the preservation of the multidisciplinary, complex nature of the first systematized data and introduced the first broad perspectives on data col-lected within the orientalist spectrum of human sciences: universalist aspira-tions ‘to draw the lines of human evolution’ (Lalayan 1896a), or in Boasian terms, ‘to establish the laws governing the growth of culture’ (Boas, cited in Rodseth 2002) were to appear again in the late nineteenth century.

5 To be precise, the structure and even the sequence of chapters of Lisitsian’s questionnaire are obviously influenced by an earlier work written by Grigorii Chursin (1929), with whom Lisitsian worked for many years at the Caucasus Historical-Archaeological Institute (Varda-nian 2005: 103-109). 6 This interest of one of the Deans of the Lazarian School of Oriental Languages resulted in the publication of nine volumes of Eminean Azgagrakan Zhoghovatzu (Eminian Ethnographi-cal Collection, 1901-1911), the second Armenian language academic periodical in the Caucasus.


This chapter does not explore all the various ways in which imperial interests have transformed the ‘pure’ inquisitiveness of local or visiting scholars and ethnographers in the 19th and 20th century. Setting out from Marshall Sahlins’ observation that in ‘[a]nthropology there are some things that are better left unsaid’ (2002: 35), I only describe how, before commit-ting to any particular theory, the first generation of Armenian lay intellectu-als had to accept some viewpoints of the European scholars, who were employed as administrators in newly acquired imperial domains (cf. Soko-lovskiy 2009: 54-55), as their precursors in researching the Armenians ‘ethnographically’. The German civil servants Hermann Abich (1806-1886), August Haxthausen (1792-1866), Johann-Friedrich Parrot (1791-1841), and Moritz Wagner (1813-1887) were accompanied in their studies in Armenia by Derpt (Tartu) University graduate Khachatur Abovian (1806-1848), who served as an interpreter. This fact would seem to indicate that as one of ‘Great Powers’ of the time, Russia was present in Armenian ethnography from its very origin, if we put this origin point in the second half of the nineteenth century.7

This tendency was hardly acknowledged in the most recent textbook on ethnography (Bdoyan 1974), and it appears at variance with the consen-sus surrounding the origins of Armenian ethnography that links the disci-pline’s origins in Armenia to Srvandztian’s and Khalatian’s research pro-grams (Khalatian 1908; Petrosyan 2008). Nevertheless, Vard Bdoyan, as a founder of the narrowly localist genealogy of ethnographic science in Arme-nia, did not suppress his desire to move the origins of Armenian ethnography further back to late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, linking them with the formation of European-style historiography, linguistics, and folklore studies among the members of the Catholic Armenian Mkhitarist congrega-tion of Venice (Bdoyan 1974: 8-13).8 In fact, the problem of choice across

7 Lisa Khachaturian has also reflected on the origins of Armenian ethnography, noting that ‘The loosening restrictions of the reform era, which gave the Russian generations of the fifties and sixties [of the nineteenth century] the professional support to embark upon demographic, ethnographic and statistical expeditions, also encouraged their non-Russian peers to organize similar information gathering projects’ (2009: 191). See also Chapter 6 of her book for an account of the gradually emerging presence of an ethnographic agenda within Armenian studies from the 1860s to the 1880s. Also, note that Stepanos Nazar‘yantz, the central figure of Khachaturian’s book, also graduated from Derpt University. 8 Through one of its former monks — Serovbe Karnetsi, who reverted from Catholicism to the Armenian Apostolic faith in 1813 — the Mkhitarists also made contributions to the Russian Oriental school. Karnetsi was a learned expert on several European and Middle Eastern languages. He was appointed as Director of the Moscow Lazarian School of Oriental Languages in 1817, where he taught for the first decade of the school’s existence (Khacha-trian and Khacherian 1968). At around the same time, another Mkhitarist, Minas Bzhshkian,

156 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

multiple intellectual currents, including those linked with local pre-scientific literary traditions, predated the emergence of ethnography as a discipline. For centuries, Armenians have described and documented their neighbours, conquerors, and hosts in an ‘objective’ manner, which has encouraged them to believe in their own ability to study themselves.9 But here it should be said that even if Armenian language sources can successfully compete with the Russian language materials in terms of quantity and thoroughness, one misguided approach of Armenian ethnography was its reliance on Russian statehood, in at least two ways: as an interested player in the formation of knowledge about peoples, and as an empire, which conquered and protected the East or Caucasian Armenia. The first has substantially supported and shaped the course of professionalization and maturation of the discipline. The second solely applies to the different fates of Armenians residing as indigenous people on the eastern and western sides of the Russian-Ottoman border.10

In this initial period of Armenian ethnography, the boundaries be-tween ‘salvage’ and ‘knowledge’ were unstable, with the two folding into one another in the first decades of the discipline’s formation both before and after the sovietization of Armenia. By introducing this pair of paradigms I hope to show how ethnographic knowledge about the Armenians was solidi-fied, as the greatest part of this process occurred in the Soviet period (see the appendix). The active resistance of professionalizing Armenian ethnogra-phers to both mercantile and ideologically determined knowledge-seeking practices of empires has a background in the earlier Armenian literary tradi-tion. It was also an ecclesiastical tradition, though such an attribution might seem old-fashioned today (but cf. Barth 2005: 7-15; Robbins 2006). Several Armenian intellectuals of the nineteenth century, who participated in the first ethnographic enquiries, were either clergymen or from priest families. For

published his splendid travelogues on Armenians in Poland, Crimea, and north-eastern Turkey. 9 The best-known example from the Armenian literary tradition of neighbouring peoples being described comes from seventh-century Armenian geography: The Ashkharatsuyts manuscript provides modern researchers with approximately two dozen ancient ethnonyms for the Caucasian peoples. Another key source for scholars of the early Mongol period is Patkanov 1873. Both sources were translated into Russian in the 1870s by Kerovbe P. Patka-nov (1833-1889), a professor of the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Saint Petersburg Univer-sity. Patkanov tutored N. I. Marr and was the father of the prominent researcher of western Siberia, Serafim/Serovbe K. Patkanov (1861-1918). 10 As this volume explores anthropology in Soviet Caucasus and Central Asia, my chapter skips over many details of the ethnography of western Armenians, who have fallen victim or survived the genocide in the Ottoman empire from 1915-1921. This disaster has had a pro-found impact on Armenian ethnography of the Soviet period as well, and I hope to reflect more substantially on this in a future paper.


instance, in addition to serving as an officer in the Russian army and writing Bibliographica Caucasica et Transcaucasica (1874-76), Mikhail Miansarov (1830-1880) was the nephew of an Armenian Catholicos Nerses Ashtaraketsi and one of the founders of Armenian folklore studies (Vardanian 2002). Khachatur Abovian, a young priest who left St. Ejmiatzin to help professor Parrot climb mount Ararat and then became his student in Derpt (Tartu), was employed afterwards as a schoolmaster in Russian administration of the Armenian province. Abovian has been lauded as an ethnographer for his vivid representations of Armenian village life under Persian rule, the Muslim festival in Tiflis, and Kurdish wedding ceremonies. Members of the Patka-nov family were descendants of a priest who ran a school for Circassian Armenians and other converted Christians in Armavir, North Caucasus. Ultimately, nearly all of the forefathers of the various branches of Armenian studies were connected to the Armenian Church.

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Armenian society under-took capitalist development, which wrought remarkable changes, and the salvage paradigm was secularized enough to fill in the veins of nationalism. But from the vantage point of the institutional changes of the period, or as an explanation of the composition of the Armenian Ethnographical Society, both paradigms were equally influential in the ongoing formation of ethno-graphic scholarship. As one of the largest and most dispersed nations in the region Armenians were widely employed in the Russian civil administration of the Caucasus. At the same time, the Armenian Church continued to pro-vide a well-established parallel network for the dozens or even hundreds of amateur ethnographers and folklorists. One such amateur was Yervand Lalayan, who used his savings from five years of teaching in a parish school to attend courses in Geneva and Paris, before subsequently founding Azga-grakan handes (Ethnographical Journal, 1896-1916) and Armenian Ethno-graphical Association (1906). Late Soviet Armenian Ethnography: Institutional Changes

After the establishment of an academic department in the Institute of Ar-chaeology and Ethnography at Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR (IAE) in 1959, Lisitsian’s disciples reinitiated regular fieldwork trips to areas inside and beyond Armenia, which were selected as insufficiently studied at the moment (Vardumian 1959).11 Already in 1960, the geographical scope

11 The Ethnography group at the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Armenia was established earlier, in 1953, and was comprised of a small number of ethnographers who were previously employed in the Ethnography Department of the State Museum of History, which was at that point also part of the Academy of Sciences. In a 1960 manuscript, Deren Vardumian linked the organization of this group to the Pan-Union ethnographic conference in

158 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

of their studies spanned to the Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh and Javakheti regions, the Russian coast of the Black Sea, and Rostov-on-the-Don. Thus the practice of ethnographic rescue expeditions to distinct Arme-nian groups was restored. The interest in Soviet peasant and labour studies, which can be observed in the publications of some of the members of these expeditions in the late years of Stalin’s rule (e.g. Vardumian 1956), evapo-rated as soon as the official status of Armenian ethnography improved with the establishment of the Institute of Ethnography in Moscow. The latter was intended as a centre of Soviet ethnography, replicating the centralized struc-ture of the Soviet state. The first actual collaboration between the Caucasus department of the Moscow Institute and their Armenian colleagues occurred in the course of writing the second volume of ‘Narody Kavkaza’ (Peoples of the Caucasus, Gardanov 1962), in which some hundred pages were dedi-cated to traditional Armenian culture. As the senior members of the Ethnog-raphy department at IAE told me, Mark Kosven (1885-1967), then the head of the Caucasus department of IE, actually encouraged the institute’s per-sonnel to narrow down and deepen their focus on research of traditional culture.

The ‘Moscow Centre’ was always present in the Armenian academy, although not to the extent indicated in certain contemporary studies of totali-tarianism (cf. opinions about the relative unimportance and thus the relative safety of ethnographic studies in Soviet Union and Eastern European coun-tries from 1960 through the 1980s: Buchowski 2007: 7; Slezkin 1993: 114). From the peripheral Armenian point of view, the enormity of the tasks discussed and decided by the Centre at the time that Russian/Soviet ethnog-raphy was being restructured fell under the paradigm of ‘civil service’ or ‘knowledge for sale’.12 Trained in older, traditional ethnography, which was mastered not long before by Lisitsian in his prominent Ethnographic Ques-tionnaire (1946), the next generation was neither willing nor able to shift from ‘cultural studies’ to ‘community studies’ in a broad sense.13 Their traditionalist leanings were about to be outweighed by the need to be in tune with ‘progressive’ Soviet trends in developing ethnographic science, to be

Moscow ‘which suggested combining ethnographic scientific research with works on building Communism’ (Vardumian 1960). 12 In comparison with the situation in Western societies described by Willner (1973) in Weberian terminology, the Soviet sciences had a unique relation with society as the main consumer of scholarship. Soviet humanities scholars and society were walled off one from one another by the state, which served as censor, sponsor, and employer, which is not the case in liberal Western societies and university systems. 13 Here, I accept Wolfe’s provisional distinction between the Soviet socio-cultural research, which was more inclined toward studying ‘cultures’, and socio-cultural research in Eastern and Central Europe, which was more inclined toward studying ‘communities’ (2000: 198).


part of relations between the governments and the society to earn a living, as well as funds for ethnographic education and research. But with upwards of only nine scholars working at the Armenian Department of Ethnography in the early 1960s, this group would have been unable to fulfil tasks or recom-mendations appearing in the pages of Sovetskaia etnografiia, even if they had so desired. Furthermore, certain research trends from the (from the standpoint of scholars in the peripheries) fluctuating ‘centre of ethnographic thought’ (Moscow) were finding rich soil in Armenian reality and were fostering paths out of mainstream, traditional ‘salvage ethnography’.

While the impact of Western anthropological thought on Moscow- and Leningrad/St. Petersburg-based ethnographers has often been over-looked in postsocialist reflections on the formation of the ethnographic agenda in the Soviet Union from the 1950s to the 1980s, the influence of ethnographic works initially prioritized in Moscow is easily observable in provincial Armenia. Vardumian’s and Karapetian’s study on kolkhoz peas-ants (1963) described the developments in ‘thriving’ socialist Armenian society, utilizing a historical-comparative perspective (albeit without an elaborated methodology), and simply juxtaposing traditional culture and modernity as two analytic categories (Mkrtumian 1979; Vardumian 1956; Vardumian and Karapetian 1963).14 Karl Seghbosian’s works even more strongly attended to socio-cultural changes and patterns of urbanization in Gyumri, Armenia’s second largest city (referred to as Leninakan before 1991 and Alexandropol before 1924) and its hinterlands (Seghbosian 1974, 1980). Alla Panian’s works (Ter-Sarkisiants 1989, 1998) also played a key role in initiating intra-community comparative studies of Armenians in Armenia and in Nagorno-Karabakh and the North Caucasus.

There is no need to go deeper into the findings of this earliest variant of Soviet Armenian ethnographic ‘contemporary’ or ‘applied’ studies: taken together, all such writings from the 1950s to the 1970s, both published and unpublished, comprise no more than a few thousand pages. The most impor-tant contribution of these studies was that they irreversibly though only partially overcame the ‘historicist’ or ‘traditionalist’ theory of popular cul-ture. These efforts validated the study of cultural change as valuable in its own right. Of course, this should not be thought of as completely novel, especially when we consider the previously mentioned statistical and eco-nomic surveys of Russian Armenian civil servants in the late nineteenth century as an antecedent. But, unfortunately, this novel intellectual trend preserved close ties with the socialist vision of Armenian modernization and posed itself as an antithesis to earlier cultural studies. Aiming to move even

14 Consult Abashin’s chapter in this volume.

160 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

further from earlier traditions of scholarly inquiry, this trend arrived at a new methodological foundation by merging ethnography and sociology (and distancing the two as much as possible from the discipline of history).15 The convergence of ethnography and sociology was administratively secured with the establishment of the new ethno-sociology department at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography in the 1970s. And, as might be expected, this radical departure was orchestrated from Moscow.

Meanwhile, the small community of Armenian ethnographers could not come to an agreement regarding the urgency of studying social change. They continued to devote their limited time and resources to collecting data on traditional cultural artefacts and lore, as their respondents steadily grew old and died. From the 1950s onward, the bulk of ethnographies written either in Armenian or Russian amounted to historical-ethnographical studies, devoting roughly equal attention to ‘material’ and ‘spiritual’ culture as research subjects. Comparing the titles of dissertations written during this period (see the appendix) with the structure of Lisitsian’s Ethnographic Questionnaire, the unrestricted dominance of traditional themes becomes apparent, although the first passionate excursions into the field of social and cultural changes associated with socialism appeared shortly after publication of the questionnaire. Only a few of the 50 chapters of Ethnographic Ques-tionnaire deal with questions related to Soviet-era changes, although Lisit-sian did make some general remarks about the importance of studying such changes in the book’s introduction (Lisitsian 1946: 6-9; Vardumian 1963). Long after his death, Lisitsian’s questionnaire continued to play a key role in shaping the agenda of Armenian ethnography. Customarily, ethnography students at Yerevan State University consulted Ethnographic Questionnaire before assembling their own questionnaires for summer fieldwork. In the course of their training, Yuri Mkrtumian and a number of colleagues would work with the novices to help them develop their fieldwork skills (Arutyunov 2006).

A quick look at the appended list of dissertations makes apparent the recurring chronological frame of Armenian ethnographic studies: the titles of 45 of the 73 works contain phraseology like ‘a historical-ethnographical study of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’. Even when not explicitly referenced in titles, this time period figures prominently in the introductory chapters of these works.

15 A similar merger of social sciences was observed in the US in the 1930s, inspired by the increased influence of the British social-anthropological theories and by the more mundane forces described by Goldschmidt as the ‘recognition that we were also a part of the world’s cultures, as a deficiency adjustment to the lack of funds for overseas research, and the concern with the poor and underprivileged in our society in those depressive years’ (2000: 796).


I cannot provide here an exhaustive explanation for this phenomenon. Moreover, this ‘classical’ period is likely not a uniquely Armenian experi-ence. Sergey Sokolovskiy detects the same developments over a much wider Russian/Soviet milieu and refers to it as ‘ethnographical time’ (Sokolovskiy 2009: 51). Whatever the reasons for this ethnographic ‘diet’, the second half of the twentieth century finally witnessed the realization of an agenda for Armenian ethnography that was set at least two generations earlier.

Of course, there are many clues that allow us to speak about the attrac-tiveness or higher value of historical ethnography over applied ethnography, as the latter term was familiar to Vardumian, for whom applied ethnography roughly meant the study of social change. This evidence not only proves the reliance of Lisitsian’s disciples and their own subsequent disciples on the ‘salvage’ paradigm but also testifies to the decay of this paradigm in the course of relations between the expanding community of professional eth-nographers and the local bureaucracy. Thus the ‘project’ of rescuing disap-pearing elements of Armenian culture that began in the 1960s was spurred by the events of 1965 and the subsequent decision of the government to build an Armenian National Museum of Ethnography.16 As the Sardarapat Museum was being built on the periphery of Yerevan between 1968 and 1978, further changes were made to the curricula and training received by future ethnographers at Yerevan State University. Ethnographic education was continuously improved throughout the 1970s and 1980s with the contri-butions of Yuri I. Mkrtumian, who led basic courses and trained students.17 In 1970, Mkrtumian began to introduce new courses to Yerevan State Uni-versity in an attempt to bring the institution’s standards to the level of his alma mater, Moscow State University.18

16 On April 24, 1965, the 50th anniversary of the Armenian genocide was commemorated with mass riots by Armenian students and youth in Yerevan, which finally led to further liberalization of the government’s cultural policy. The measures that followed were aimed at reconciling the people with the government and included decisions to build the Genocide Memorial and the Ethnographic Museum in Sardarapat (for more details, see Gispert 2007; Marutyan 2009; Suny 1993: 180-186, 205-210). 17 Although the independent Chair of Ethnography came into being at Yerevan State Univer-sity in 1989 (and re-united with the chair of archaeology in 2004), a limited number of courses on ethnography were taught by YSU’s history and geography departments at various points. The first such courses were taught by Lisitsian in the 1930s and 1940s (Vardanian 2005: 220-250). In the 1950s and 1960s, ethnography was taught to history students by Karapet Melik-Pashayan and Deren Vardumian, with the support of their younger (Anusha-van Petrosyan and Rafik Nahapetyan) and elder (Vard Bdoyan) colleagues. 18 Sergei A. Tokarev, a leading Russian ethnographer, was invited to teach a special course in 1970. From the late 1970s onward, Sergey A. Arutyunov began to give annual lectures on pre-selected topics. Nahapetyan and Petrosyan both taught special courses on Armenian ethnography. Petrosyan also taught a course entitled Ethnography of the Slavs and Urban

162 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

Summarizing my review of the institutional changes in Armenian eth-nography, we can first note the rapid numerical increase both of state-funded institutions and professional ethnographers over a relatively short period of time. This boom strikingly contrasts with the depletion of the field in the early Soviet decades. The Ethnography Department at the State Museum of History was supplemented by two departments at the Institute of Archae-ology and Ethnography (the ethnography department in 1959 and the ethno-sociology department in 1981) and the State Museum of Ethnography (in 1978). Graduates from the ethnography program were employed by other institutes of the Academy of Sciences (the Institutes of History, Arts, and Oriental Studies) and by museums with ethnography departments. The establishment of stable relations between Armenian ethnographers and their counterparts in the Moscow Institute was another important institutional development, enhancing the links between the centre and the periphery and with the various developing academic schools in other peripheries. Changed Perspectives on Armenian Culture and Community

The widespread assumption that the main practice of Soviet ethnographers in the late Soviet decades was the adaptation of available freedom of thought to an existing corpus of folk knowledge may be seen in late soviet Armenian ethnography with the investment of a ‘culturological apparatus’ into a field dominated by calm salvage ethnography.19 Limitations on freedom of thought backed the unexpected penetration of sociological methods into research projects targeting innovations (vs. traditions) or social and cultural changes. The results of these projects were published in the mid-1980s (Kul‘tura zhizneobespecheniia 1983; Naselenie Erevana 1986), but the fieldwork leading to these collective monographs was originally planned in and had been conducted since the mid-1970s.20

Ethnography. Several other special courses were taught by leading scholars from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography: D. Vardumian taught fieldwork methods; Sargis Haruti-unian taught folklore and epics; and Gevorg Tiratsian taught Armenian ethnogenesis. With the arrival of the Moscow-trained generation of scholars like Levon Abrahamian, Zaven Kharatian, Harutyun Marutyan in the early 1980s, the number of special courses increased: An introductory course entitled History of Ethnographic Thought provided students with an overview of the various anthropological and ethnological schools up through French structur-alism. Regional studies were expanded to include Africa and the South Pacific. 19 Although the late construction of the Ethnographic Museum extended the period of mate-rial collection (over the course of the 1980s, the museum purchased and acquired donations of more than 30,000 artefacts from all over Armenia, the adjacent Armenian populated regions, and from the diaspora), the era of salvage ethnography was fading away (at least temporarily). 20 The contributors and assistant researchers were mainly local scholars, many of them recent graduates of the Moscow aspirantura (the graduate school at the Institute of Ethnography). In


The two volumes that resulted from this decade long collective effort deserve much more attention than the limits of this chapter allow. It suffices to note that Kul‘tura zhizneobespecheniia and Naselenie Erevana are the most extensively cited monographs in post-Soviet Armenian ethnographic literature. These works are interesting insofar as they reveal top-down efforts to modernize local ethnography. The presence of two prominent Armenian scholars — Sergey A. Arutyunov and Iurii V. Arutiunian — from the Mos-cow institute confirms this supposition. Both teams of authors utilized spe-cially designed quantitative methods, and although the ethno-sociological study of Yerevan (Naselenie Erevana) is based on statistical and other standardized materials much more than the volume on subsistence culture of the late soviet Armenian peasantry (Kul‘tura zhizneobespecheniia), both are substantially removed from the traditional ethnographic questionnaire. 21

The evolving views of local principal investigators add some interest-ing nuances to the previous discussion. As a contributor to Kul‘tura zhizneobespecheniia and also a co-author of the four-part working theory of ethnic culture (Arutyunov 1989: 200-229; Mkrtumian 1978), early in his career Yuri Mkrtumian was one of the first to revisit the pre-Soviet statistical materials. 22 He successfully recuperated the implicit ethnographic value of those sources in his dissertation (Mkrtumian 1974; cf. Volkova 1984). In later decades, this trove of socio-economic information began to feed the younger generation of Armenian ethnographers, and it became obligatory to reference these sources in dissertations on culture and community relations in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Before she edited Naselenie Erevana, Emma Karapetian was long involved with research into social

addition to the ethnographers from IAE and Yerevan State University, a group of philoso-phers from the corresponding Institute of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, headed by Eduard Markarian, contributed to the collection of materials and to writing Kul‘tura zhizneobespecheniia i etnos (1983); for a retrospective account by one of the contributors, see Barsegian 2000. 21 Naselenie Erevana was realized as a part of the pan-Union research project known by the acronym ‘OCY’, which stood for Optimizatsiia sotsial‘no-kul‘turnykh uslovii razvitiia i sblizhenia natsii v SSSR (Optimization of socio-cultural standards of development and imminence). ‘Acculturation’ is the Western concept closest to this notion, which was devel-oped and overseen by the Department of Ethno-sociology of the IE. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the rich materials from this project (for a critical overview, consult Shanin 1989). Modern scholars of the Caucasus may find the works of its Dagestani and North Ossetian groups summarized in Traditsionnoe i novoe (1988) and Sovremennye sotsial‘nye 1987. 22 With his four part model of culture, Yu. Mkrtumyin sought to avoid dichotomizing the notions of ‘material’ and ‘spiritual’. He suggested the following four part analytic distinction: 1. Culture of primary production; 2. Subsistence culture; 3. Socio-normative culture; and 4. Humanitarian culture.

164 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

relations in the Armenian peasant community, focusing on clans and com-munities (Karapetian 1950, 1966, 1971).

There were heterodox tendencies in the works of these authors, who pushed for more sociological and verifiable methods of extracting ethno-graphically relevant information on peasant culture and urban communities. This time, efforts at rapprochement with the ‘knowledge’ paradigm were substantially backed by the resources of maturing Armenian ethnography departments — both surveys (Kul‘tura zhizneobespecheniia and Naselenie Erevana) were nationwide and rather laborious endeavours. The constant ties with Moscow colleagues and the Russian language of publications had rendered these heterodoxies unique alternatives to the apparently receding traditional ethnography.

Today it is difficult to appreciate the real potency of these experiments in soviet Armenian ethnography, as the socialist model of modernization vanished with perestroika, the subsequent disintegration of Soviet society, the rise of nationalism, and other broad systemic changes. Studies of the ‘late nineteenth — early twentieth century’ dominated Armenian ethnogra-phy of the 1980s, like in previous and subsequent decades. The word ‘cul-ture’, which had recently risen in status and gained a categorical meaning, was continuously and consciously decategorized in historical ethnography. We find this word attached mainly to the branches of material culture (for instance, as the appendix demonstrates, ‘embroidery culture’ and ‘oil extrac-tion culture’ appear in the titles of the dissertations of Karine Bazeyan and Suren Hobosyan). In fact, the concept of culture was downgraded to a simple word, an extension, useless without the preceding noun or the adjective ‘Armenian’. The works of ethnography students and numerous Moscow-educated scholars from this period actually constituted a detailed elaboration of the issues briefly formulated in Lisitsian’s earlier questionnaire. Now they were striving to do more than merely note the existence of variants in folk culture, although such variants were not neglected. From a certain perspec-tive, Armenian ethnography in the late Soviet decades was reconstructivist, emphasizing customs and rituals that were overlooked or simplified in the previous Soviet decades. The following brief assertion from Armenian ethnographer Levon Abrahamian (2004: 14) discloses the essential charac-teristics of this period, which in many ways constituted a continuation of the salvage paradigm:

Those researchers who were governed by nonconformist profes-sional and moral principles consciously or unconsciously preferred to reconstruct the archaic past, because here they enjoyed compara-tively greater creative freedom. This does not mean, of course, that the search for roots was an entirely danger-free, apolitical occupa-


tion: reconstructions of primeval society could be as fantastic as they liked, but they were not permitted to contradict the Marxist version of the beginnings of human history.23

The fervour for salvage in this period also involved fervour for inven-tion and/or reinvention. Already in 1984, when Natal‘ia Volkova was writ-ing about the ethnographic value of statistical, economic, and other materials collected by late nineteenth-century Caucasian Russian administrators, these materials were already being extensively cited in works of Armenian ethnog-raphers (Akopian 1988; Arakelian 1984; Dolzhenko 1984; Mkrtchian 2010; Mkrtumian 1974; Sarkisian 2002). Thus, since the late 1960s, citation of the publications of former imperial civil servants has been obligatory in bibliog-raphies of Armenian ethnographic studies and especially in Russian lan-guage dissertations in the 1980s. Another practice from this period was the collection of ‘rural histories’, which eventually developed into an extensive archival project. During their fieldwork, which was organized into month-long ‘complex ethnographic expeditions’ (Gromov 1966), local amateurs (most of whom were teachers) were provided with a copy of Lisitsian’s Questionnaire and were asked to write down their own observations, which were later purchased by the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography. Since the 1970s and into the present, this collection of data has been extensively cited in dissertations.24 It is worth noting that many of the individual files that comprise this collection are quite informative about Soviet realities both from the standpoint of folklore studies and from an economic anthropologi-cal perspective.

23 L. Abrahamian and H. Pikichian have provided one of the most picturesque ethnographic reviews of late-Soviet Yerevan (Abrahamian and Pikichian 1989, 1990). Descriptions of many of the traits of Armenian folk culture, originally studied and reconstructed in the 1970s and 1980s, are now available in English (Abrahamian and Sweezy 2001). L. Abrahamian’s latest work (2006) includes an account of his interpretive approach to late Soviet Armenia as seen from the ensuing postsocialist era. 24 The Archive of the Ethnographic Department (AED) of IAE also houses materials from the annual expeditions of IAE ethnographers, over 20,000 photographs, 600 drawings, over 200 genealogical trees, and 160 personal files from village correspondents. The former terminol-ogy — ‘village correspondent’ — is not always correct, as many of these correspondents actually lived in towns or cities, and about thirty were refugees from western Armenia or were repatriated members of the diaspora. In 2006, in accordance with Yuri I. Mkrtumian’s will, the archive received Mkrtumian’s collection of field materials and a portion of the HAG (Hamalsarani azgagrakan gitarshav [University Ethnographic Expedition]) materials col-lected in the Tavush and Vayots Dzor provinces of Armenia.

166 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

Conclusion

Agreeing that Iulian Bromley and his colleagues’ leanings toward Soviet ethnography were predicated on Marxist cum evolutionist presuppositions and an irrefutable vision of socialism as the most advanced form of human society, and acknowledging that these leanings toward Moscow have im-pacted the peripheries since the 1970s, I must also state that it is hard to search for immediate realizations of an envisioned common Soviet agenda in Armenian ethnography. The following commentary from Teodor Shanin summarizes the features of late Soviet scholarship:

Soviet perceptions of ethnicity and their expression within the social sciences differ in emphasis and in angle of vision from their Western counterparts. They follow a different tradition, which has led to a different reading so far and stimulated different patterns of data-gathering and analysis. While rejecting racialist ahistoricity, they did not accept as its alternative a fully relativist treatment of ethnicity. They accorded ethnic phenomena greater substance, consistency, and autonomous casual power and focussed attention on the ethnic-ity of majorities as well as minorities. Compared to mainstream Western studies, theirs have been more historical in the way they treated ethnic data, yet these analytical achievements have not pro-duced effective ethnic policies for the close of our century. To see why, one must turn to the way ethnic images intersected with Soviet political strategies and the country’s history (Shanin 1989: 415-416).

This commentary is one of the mildest I have encountered in post-Soviet reflections on ‘Soviet’ ethnology. The majority of other assessments of the historical role or the positivist value of ‘Soviet’ ethnography (I use the quotes to weaken the archetypical unity of this term) take on the form of inter-generational breach. Even the more substantial critique hardly goes beyond relations between scholars and the state, on one side, and the issue of the responsibility of ethnographers for the rise of national sentiments/self-consciousness, on the other.25 This situation is at least strange: though we see the need for and some temptations to treat ‘Soviet’ and contemporary ‘Western’ anthropologies as equal counterparts (Buchowski 2006, 2007; Danilov 1992; Dragadze 1996; Hann 2005; Hann et al. 2007), there are very few comparative studies on the ways that both scholarly communities sought to move away from the salvage paradigm. Reading in Gupta and Ferguson (1997: 21) that American cultural anthropology ‘outgrew its “salvage” phase’ in the 1930s and 1940s (or even later, in the 1950s, according to

25 Given that the state was governed by communist internationalist ideology, the combination of these two forceful currents in post-Soviet self-critique seems logically inconsistent.


Bunzl 2004: 437-440 and Goldschmidt 2000), and noting some similarities between acculturation studies in the United States (Gupta and Ferguson 1997: 21-22) and the ‘optimization’ mega-project (OCY) in the Soviet Union (Danilov 1992; Shanin 1989), I have not thus far encountered any analytical works that discuss the diffusion of ideas across the Iron Curtain. Instead, ‘self-criticism’ in post-Soviet Russian ethnography, initiated by Valerii Tishkov, the Director of the Moscow Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology, has pressed the disfavoured elders to defend their positions against faint accusations, generally voiced in political and, more rarely, in moral terms. A recent volume (Tishkov 2008) of interviews with leading Soviet ethnographers may be a sign of improvement, as it provides us the chance to hear the voices of individuals involved in the development of ethnographic theorizing and field research on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain.

One of my hopes in separating the not very complicated ethnographic practices of Soviet Armenia into ‘salvage’ and ‘knowledge’ and attributing them paradigmatic characteristics was to display that, under totalitarian rule, the nature of the discipline did not change to the extent depicted in post-Soviet reflections on cases in which local ethnographers took part in the Soviet manner of resolving the so-called ‘nationalities issue’ in the Soviet Union (Hirsch 2005; Marshall 2006). On the other hand, acknowledging some of the milestones achieved in Armenian ethnography both before and after sovietization, it is important to note those characteristics of the disci-pline that are pan-imperial or pan-Soviet in nature. In interaction with local traditions built on the stones collected for ‘those who will come next’ (La-layan 1896a), these characteristics contributed to the formation of Soviet-era Armenian ethnography as a traditionalist discipline. References

Abrahamian, L. 2004. Answers to Questions: Cultural Anthropology: The State of the Field. Forum for Anthropology and Culture 1: 12-18.

------. 2006. Armenian Identity in a Changing World. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.

Abrahamian, L., and H. Pikichian. 1989. Observations on the Ethnography of a Modern City, II. The Automobile Culture of Yerevan. Etnokon-taktnye zony v evropeiskoi chasti SSSR (geografiia, dinamika, me-tody issledovaniia), pp. 148-159. Moscow: Geographical Society of the USSR, Moscow Branch.

168 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

------. 1990. Observations on the Ethnography of a Modern City. The Exam-ple of Erevan, I. The Rabiz and the Variability of the Urban Social Hierarchy. Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology 29 (2): 34-44.

Abrahamian, L., and N. Sweezy (eds.). 2001. Armenian Folk Arts, Culture and Identity. Bloomington et al.: Indiana University Press.

Akopian, M. 1988. Sel‘skaia obshchina v Vostochnoi Armenii vo vtoroi polovine XIX – nachale XX vv. (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledo-vanie). Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.

Arakelian, G. 1984. Cherkesogai. Kavkaz i Vizantiia 4: 28-129. Arutiunian, Iu. V., and E. T. Karapetian (eds.). 1986. Naselenie Erevana.

Etnosotsiologicheskoe issledovanie. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.

Arutyunov, S. 1989. Narody i kul‘tury. Razvitie i vzaimodeistvie. Moscow: Nauka.

------. 2006. Pamiati Iuriia Israelovicha Mkrtumiana. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 3: 158-166.

Barsegian, I. 2000. When Text Becomes Field: Fieldwork in “Transitional” Societies. In N. Dudwick, and H. De Soto (eds.), Fieldwork Dilem-mas: Anthropologists in Postsocialist States, pp. 119-129. Madison: Wisconsin University Press.

Barth, F. 2002. An Anthropology of Knowledge. Current Anthropology 43: 1-18.

------. 2005. Britain and the Commonwealth. In F. Barth et al. (eds.), One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French and American An-thropology, pp. 3-58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bdoyan, V. 1974. Hay azgagrutyun. hamarot urvagitz. Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press.

Buchowski, M. 2006. The Specter of Orientalism in Europe: From Exotic Other to Stigmatized Brother. Anthropological Quarterly 79: 463-481.

------. 2007. The Invention of Postsocialist Anthropologists and Anthropol-ogy by Anthropologists. Paper presented at Annual Soyuz Sympo-sium “Locating Eurasia in Postsocialist Studies. The Geopolitics of Naming”. Princeton University, 27-29 April.

Bunzl, M. 2004. Boas, Foucault, and the “Native Anthropologist”: Notes toward a Neo-Boasian Anthropology. American Anthropologist 106: 435-442.

Chursin, G. 1929 Programma dlia sobiraniia etnograficheskikh svedenii primenitel‘no k bytu kavkazskikh narodov. Baku: Society for Re-search and Study of Azerbaijan.


Clay, C. 1989. Russian Ethnographers in the Service of Empire, 1856-1862. Slavic Review 54: 45-62.

Danilov, V. P. 1992. Introduction to the Russian Edition. In T. Shanin (ed.), Velikii neznakomets: Krest‘iane i fermery v sovremennom mire, pp. 3-5. Moscow: Progress.

Dolzhenko, I. 1984. Khoziaistvennyi i obshchestvennyi byt russkikh krest‘ian Vostochnoi Armenii (konets XIX – nachalo XX vv.). Yerevan: Pub-lishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.

Dragadze, T. 1996. Ernest Gellner in the Soviet East. In J. Hall, and I. Jarvie (eds.), The Social Philosophy of Ernest Gellner, pp. 65-68. Amster-dam: Rodopi.

Gardanov, V. K. (ed.). 1962. Narody Kavkaza. Vol. 2. Moscow: Nauka. Gispert, J. 2007. “The Eagle of History”. Some Motives on the Genocide

and Sardarapat Monuments. Paper presented at the International Conference dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial Complex of the Armenian Genocide victims. Yerevan, November 7-8.

Goldschmidt, W. 2000. A Perspective on Anthropology. American Anthro-pologist 102: 789-807.

Gromov, G. 1966. Metodika etnograficheskikh ekspeditsii. Moscow: Mosk-ovskii Universitet.

Gupta, A., and J. Ferguson. 1997. Discipline and Practice: “The Field” as Site, Method, and Location in Anthropology. In A. Gupta, and J. Ferguson (eds.), Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, pp. 1-46. Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press.

Hanchett, S. 1978. Five Books in Symbolic Anthropology. A Review Essay. American Anthropologist 80: 613-21.

Hann, C. 2005. Memory Tracks: State, Nation and Everyday Life in 1970s Budapest. Berliner Osteuropa-Info 23: 17-23.

------. 2007. Anthropology’s Multiple Temporalities and its Future in Central and Eastern Europe (with comments from M. Benovska, A. Bošk-ović, M. Buchowski, D. Kalb, J. Podoba, D. Z. Scheffel, P. Skalník, M. Stewart, Z. Uherek, K. Verdery and a reply from C. Hann). Working Paper 90. Halle/ Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social An-thropology.

Hirsch, F. 2005. Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of Soviet Nation. New York: Cornell University Press.

Islammagomedov, A., and G. Sergeeva (eds.). 1988. Traditsionnoe i novoe v sovremennom byte i kul‘ture dagestantsev pereselentsev. Moscow: Nauka.

170 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

Karapetian, E. 1950. Vykup v svadebnykh obriadakh armian i ego sot-sial‘no-ekonomicheskie korni. Studies of the State History Museum of Armenia 3: 73-146.

------. 1966. Krovno-rodstvennaia gruppa “azg” u armian. Yerevan: Pub-lishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.

------. 1971. Survivals of Patronymic Relations among the Armenians (the Second Half of the XIX and the Beginning of the XX Century). In S. Tolstov et al. (eds.), VII Congress International des Sciences An-thropologiques et Ethnologiques, Vol. 10, pp. 190-194. Moscow: Nauka.

Khachatrian, H. N., and L. G. Khacherian. 1968. Serovbe Karnetsin ev ir ughegrutyune. In Serovbe Karnetsi, Ughegrutyun Baghdadits Ejmiatzin, pp. 3-35. Yerevan: Hayastan.

Khachaturian, L. 2009. Cultivating Nationhood in Imperial Russia. The Periodical Press and the Formation of a Modern Armenian Identity. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Khalatian, G. 1887. Tzragir hay azgagrutyan ev azgayin iravabanakan sovorutyunneri. Moscow: Herbek.

------. 1908. Nyuter hay azgagrutyan patmutyan. Eminean Azgagrakan Zhoghovatzu 7: 37-58.

Knight, N. 2000. Ethnicity, Nationality and the Masses: Narodnost‘ and Modernity in Imperial Russia. In D. Hoffman, and Y. Kotsonis (eds.), Russian Modernity: Politics, Knowledge, Practices, pp. 41-65. London: MacMillan Press.

Kul‘tura zhizneobespecheniia i etnos: Opyt etnokul‘turologicheskogo issle-dovaniia (na materialakh armianskoi sel‘skoi kul‘tury). 1983. Yer-evan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Arme-nian SSR.

Kuchmezov, A. (ed.). 1987. Sovremennye sotsial‘nye i etnicheskie protsessy v Severnoi Osetii. Orjonikidze: Ir.

Lalayan, Y. 1896a. From Publisher. Azgagrakan Handes 1: 5-6. ------. 1896b. Program for Collecting Materials about Marriage and Wedding

(in Armenian). Azgagrakan Handes 1: Appendix. ------. 1907. Program for Collecting Materials for the Armenian Ethno-

graphic Museum (in Armenian). Azgagrakan Handes 16: Appendix. Lisitsian, S. 1936. Armenian Ethnography in 15 years. Sovetskaia et-

nografiia 1936-a (3/4): 270-274. ------. 1946. Azgagrakan hartsaran. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Acad-

emy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. ------. 1969. Zangezuri hayere. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy

of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.


Marshall, A. 2006. The Russian General Staff and Asia, 1800-1917. New York: Routledge.

Martin, T. 2000. Modernization or Neo-Traditionalism. Ascribed Nationality and Soviet Primordialism. In D. Hoffman, and Y. Kotsonis (eds.), Russian Modernity: Politics, Knowledge, Practices, pp. 161-181. London: MacMillan Press.

Marutyan, H. 2009. Iconography of Armenian Identity: The Memory of Genocide and the Karabagh Movement. Vol. 1. Yerevan: Gitutyun.

Miansarov, M. 1874-76. Bibliographica Caucasica et Transcaucasica, Vol. 1. (Part 1 and 2). St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the Imperial Academy.

Mkrtchian, A. 2010. Obshchestvennyi byt armian Nagornogo Karabakha (vtoraia polovina XIX – nachalo XX veka). Yerevan: Gitutyun.

Mkrtumian, Iu./Yu. 1974. Formy skotovodstva v Vostochnoi Armenii: vtoraia polovina XIX – nachalo XX vv. (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie). HAB 6: 7-91.

------. 1978. Osnovnye komponenty kul‘tury etnosa. In E. Markarian (ed.), Metodologicheskie problemy issledovaniia etnicheskikh kul‘tur, pp. 42-46. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.

------. 1979. Changing Life Patterns in the Caucasus: The Contributions of Agriculture and Cattle Breeding. In B. Berdichewsky (ed.), Anthro-pology and Social Change in Rural Areas, pp. 223-234. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.

Nazinian, A. 1985. Introduction. In A. Nazinian (ed.), Matenagitutyun. Zhoghovrdagitutyune hay parberakannerum, pp. 10-33. (Compiled by K. Katsakhian), Vol. I, pp. 10-33. Yerevan: State Museum of Ethnography of Armenia.

Patkanov, K. P. 1873. Istoriia mongolov po armianskim istochnikam. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.

Petrosyan, A. 2008. Hay azgagrutyan arajin tzragir-hartsarani khndri shurj. Patmabanasirakan Handes 2: 230-243.

Robbins, J. 2006. Anthropology and Theology: An Awkward Relationship? Anthropological Quarterly 79: 285-294.

Rodseth, L. 2002. [A Commentary on Barth]. Current Anthropology 43: 12-13.

Sahlins, M. 2002. Waiting for Foucault, Still. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.

Sarkisian, G. 2002. Naselenie Vostochnoi Armenii v XIX – nachale XX vv. (etnodemograficheskoe issledovanie). Yerevan: Gitutyun.

172 ARTAK DABAGHYAN

Seghbosian, K. 1974. Arhestavorakan avanduitnere ev drants artahaytutyun-nere leninakantsineri kentsaghum. HAB 6: 157-252.

------. 1980. Shiraki ardyunaberakan avanneri bnakchutyan kazmavorman, nra kentsaghi ev mshakuyti dzevavorman arandznahatkutyunnere. Manuscript.

Shanin, T. 1989. Ethnicity in the Soviet Union: Analytical Perceptions and Political Strategies. Comparative Studies in Society and History 31: 409-424.

Slezkin, Iu. 1993. Sovetskaia etnografiia v nokdaune: 1928-1938. Etnografi-cheskoe obozrenie 2: 113-125.

Sokolovskiy, S. V. 2009. Rossiiskaia antropologiia: illiuziia blagopoluchiia. Neprikosnovennyi zapas 1: 45-64.

Stocking, G. W., Jr. 2001. Reading the Palimpsest of Inquiry: ‘Notes and Queries’ and the History of British Social Anthropology. In G. W. Stocking, Jr., Delimiting Anthropology: Occasional Essays and Re-flections, pp. 164-206. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Suny, R. 1993. Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History. Bloomington et al.: Indiana University Press.

Ter-Sarkisiants, A. 1989. Sravnitel‘naia kharakteristika sovremennoi sem‘i u armian v svoei i inonatsional‘noi srede. In Iu. V. Arutiunian (ed.), Etnosy v svoei i inonatsional‘noi srede. Materialy sovetsko-amerikanskogo simpoziuma, pp. 56-67. Yerevan: Institute of Archae-ology and Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.

------. 1998. Armiane. Istoriia i etnokul‘turnye traditsii. Moscow: Vostoch-naia literatura.

Tishkov, V. 2008. Nauka i zhizn‘. Razgovory s etnografami. Moscow: Aleteiia.

Vardanian, L. 2005. Stepan Lisitsian i istoki armianskoi etnografii. Yerevan: Gitutyun.

Vardanian, S. 2002. Mikael Miansariants. Kyanqn u gortze. Yerevan: Mughni.

Vardumian, D. 1956. Loretsineri nor kentsaghe. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.

------. 1959. Batsatragir. Manuscript in the fund of D. S. Vardumian in the Archive of IAE National Academy of Sciences, Armenia (5 pages).

------. 1960. Hai azgagrutyune 1920-1960. Manuscript in the fund of D. S. Vardumian in the Archive of IAE National Academy of Sciences, Armenia.

------ 1963. Hay azgagrutyune khorhrdayn shrjanum. Manuscript in the fund of D. S. Vardumian in the Archive of IAE National Academy of Sci-ences, Armenia (19 pages).


Vardumian, D., and E. Karapetian. 1963. Hay koltntesakanneri entanike ev entanekan kentsaghe. Yerevan: Publishing House of Academy of the Sciences of the Armenian SSR.

Vermeulen, H. 2008. Early History of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German Enlightenment: Anthropological Discourse in Europe and Asia, 1710-1808. Ph.D. Dissertation. Leiden University.

Volkova, N. 1984. Materialy ekonomicheskikh obsledovanii Kavkaza 1880-ykh godov kak etnograficheskii istochnik. Kavkazskii et-nograficheskii sbornik VIII: 206-265.

Willner, D. 1973. Anthropology: Vocation or Commodity? Current Anthro-pology 14: 547-554.

Wolfe, T. 2000. Cultures and Communities in the Anthropology of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Annual Review of Anthropol-ogy 29: 195-216.

Zelinski, [Mkrtchian] S. 1898a. Tzragir tghaberqi ev noratzin mankan fizi-kakan dastiarakutyan masin nyuter havaqelu. Azgagrakan Handes 3: 73-79.

------. 1898b. Tzragir hivandutyan ev bzhshkutyan masin nyuter havaqelu. Azgagrakan Handes 4: 97-106.

Appendix 1 List of Dissertations in Armenian Ethnography Defended in and after the Soviet Era Dissertation titles were translated by A. Dabaghyan only if not referenced by their authors in English. Titles are followed by the place and year of defence, and the institution conferring the degree. As a portion of the dissertations were published under modified titles, the text following the date of defence is provided to lead interested persons to editions of these works available in libraries. The citation with the author’s name and year, following the data on the dissertation (e.g. Published as: Vardumian 1956) prompts the reader to view the full title in the bibliography of this volume’s chapter by Da-baghyan. Studies without such extensions after the defence date are available as unpublished manuscripts in the repositories or libraries of the institutions that awarded the degree and are indicated in the list of abbreviations at the end of this appendix. Asterisks appearing before an author name indicate that the degree awarded was a Doctorate and not a Candidate of Sciences. 1950s Karapetian, Emma T. Vykup v svadebnykh obriadakh armian i ego sot-

sial‘no-ekonomicheskie korni [Ransom in Armenian Wedding Cere-monies and its Socio-Economic Roots]. Moscow: MIE 1949. Pub-lished as: Karapetian 1950.

Vardumian, Deren S. Kolkhoznyi byt Loriiskogo krest‘ianstva [The Kolkhoz Life of the Peasants in the Lori Region]. Tbilisi: IHAE GAS 1953. Published as: Vardumian 1956.

*Lisitsian, Srbui S. Armianskie narodnye pliaski i teatralizovannye predstav-lenia [Armenian Folk Dance and Theatre Performance]. IHAE GAS 1959. Published in 3 volumes: Yerevan 1958/1973/1983.

1960s *Karapetian Emma T. Semeinye otnosheniia i patronimiia u armian [Family

relations and Patronymic Groups Among the Armenians]. Tbilisi: IHAE GAS 1967. Published as: Karapetian 1966.

Petrosian, Emma Kh. Teatral‘nye i igrovye elementy v srednevekovykh armianskikh miniatiurakh [Elements of Theatre and Play in Medie-val Armenian Miniatures]. Yerevan: IA AAS 1967. Published in HAB 7 (1975).

Mkrtumian, Iurii I. Formy skotovodstva v Vostochnoi Armenii (po et-nograficheskim materialam) [Forms of Stock-Breeding in Eastern

314 LIST OF DISSERTATIONS IN ARMENIAN ETHNOGRAPHY

Armenia (based on ethnographical materials)]. Moscow: FH MGU 1968. Published as Mkrtumian 1974.

Panian (Ter-Sarkisiants), Alla E. Sovremennaia sem‘ia u armian (po materi-alam sel‘skikh raionov Armianskoi SSR) [The Modern Armenian Family (based on materials from the rural districts of the Armenian SSR)]. Moscow: MIE 1968. Published in Moscow, 1972.

Seghbosian, Karl V. Remeslennye traditsii i ikh proiavleniia v bytu lenina-kantsev [Artisanal Traditions and their Appearance in the Lifestyle of Citizens of Leninakan]. Tbilisi: IHAE GAS 1969. Published as Seghbosian 1974.

Davtian, Serik S. Ocherki po istorii armianskogo vyshival‘nogo iskusstva [Essays on the History of Armenian Embroidery]. Yerevan: IH AAS 1969.

1970s *Bdoian, Vard A. Zemledel‘cheskaia kul‘tura v Armenii [Agrarian Culture in

Armenia]. Tbilisi: IHAE GAS 1968. Published in Armenian as: Hai-astani yerkragortzagakan mshakuite, Yerevan 1970.

Vardanian, Rafael‘ O. Sistema mer dliny i poverkhnosti zemli v Armenii [System of Measurements of Length and Land Surface in Armenia]. Yerevan: IH AAS 1970.

Khachatrian Zhenya K. Javakhki hayeri zhoghovrdakan parere [Folk Dances of the Armenians of Javakhk]. Yerevan IH AAS 1971. Published in HAB 7 (1975).

Petrosian, Levon N. Peshie i v‘iuchno-verkhovye sredstva peredvizheniia na Armianskom nagor‘e (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie) [Means of Pedestrian and Equestrian Transportation in the Armenian Highlands (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IH AAS 1972. Published in Armenian: Pokhadramijotsnere Haikakan ler-nashkharhum (patma-azgagrakan usumnasirutyun). HAB 6 (1974): 93-157.

*Abramian, Valentina A. Remiesla v Armenii v IV-XVIII vv. i tsekhovye organizatsii armian-remeslennikov v gorodakh Zakavkaz‘ia s XVIII po nachalo XX vekov [Crafts in Armenia in the IV-XVIII Centuries and the Guilds of Armenian Craftsmen in Transcaucasian Cities from the XVIII to the Early XX Centuries]. Yerevan; IAE AAS 1973. Published earlier in Armenian as: 1) Arhestnere Haiastanum IV-XVIII darerum. Yerevan 1956; 2) Hayots hamkarutyunnnere Andrkovkasi qaghaqnerum XVIII-XX darerum. Yerevan 1971.

Vardanian, Liliia M. Traditsionnye muzhskie vozrastnye gruppy u armian (konets XIX – nachalo XX vv.) [Traditional Male Age Groups of the

APPENDIX 1 315

Armenians (Late XIX – Early XX Century)]. Moscow: HF MSU 1976. Published in HAB 12 (1981).

Akopian, Mania V. Sotsial‘no-ekonomicheskii stroi i byt armianskoi sel‘skoi obshchiny (konets XIX – nachalo XX vv.) [Socio-Economic Structure and the Life Mode of an Armenian Village Community (Late XIX – Early XX Century). Moscow: FH MGU 1976. Published as: Akop-ian 1988.

Dolzhenko, Irina. Khoziaistvo i obshchina russkikh krest‘ian Armenii v poreformennyi period [Economy and Community of the Russian Peasants of Armenia in the Pre-Reform Period. M. FH MGU 1976. Published as: Dolzhenko 1984.

Arakelian, G. R. Kustarnye promysly v Vostochnoi Armenii vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka [Household Industries in Eastern Armenia in the Second Half of XIX Century]. Yerevan: IH AAS 1976.

Petrosian, Anushavan S. Shelkovodstvo v Armenii [Sericulture in Armenia]. Yerevan: IH AAS 1978. Published in Armenian as: Sheramapa-hutyune Hayastanum [Silk-worm Breeding in Armenia]. Yerevan 1987.

Karapetian, Ruben S. Formirovanie naseleniia Erevana (po materialam etnosotsiologicheskogo obsledovaniia naseleniia stolitsy Armianskoi SSR) [Formation of the Population of Yerevan (Based on Ethno-Sociological Survey Materials Collected in the Capital City of the Armenian SSR). Moscow: MIE 1979. Published partially in: Nase-lenie Erevana 1986:9-80.

1980s Abdullaev, A. I. Material‘naia kul‘tura azerbaidzhantsev, prozhivavshikh v

Armenii v XIX – nachale XX vekov (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issle-dovanie po materialam Vaiots-Dzorskoi zony) [Material Culture of Azerbaijanis Residing in Armenia in the XIX to early XX Century (Historical-ethnographic study, based on materials of the Vayots Dzor Area). Tbilisi: IHAE GAS 1981.

Kharatian, Zaven V. Struktura i dinamika religioznykh perezhitkov v semei-nom bytu armian (po materialam XIX – nachala XX vv.) [The Struc-ture and Changes of Religious Survivals in Armenian Family Life (based on materials from the XIX – early XX century)]. Moscow: MIE 1981. Published as: Kul‘tovye motivy semeinykh obychaev i obriadov u armian. HAB 17 (1989): 7-61.

Arakelian [Kharatian], Granush [Hranush] S. Etnicheskaia istoria cherkesogaiev [Ethnic History of the Cherkesso-Armenians]. Lenin-grad: LOIE 1982. Pubished as: Arakelian 1984.


Vardumian, Goar [Gohar] D. Kul‘ty dokhristianskikh bozhestv u armian (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie) [Cults of Pre-Christian Dei-ties among the Armenians (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Mos-cow: FH MSU 1982. Published as: Dokhristianskie kul‘ty armian. HAB 20 (1991): 61-151.

Galstian, Ambardzum [Hambardzum] P. Razvitie dvuiazychiia u armian-skogo naseleniia Erevana (etnolingvisticheskoe issledovanie) [De-velopment of Bilingualism among the Armenians of Yerevan (An Ethno-Linguistic survey)]. Moscow: MIE 1983.

Marutian, Arutiun [Harutyun] T. Inter‘er armianskogo narodnogo zhilishcha (po materialam vtoroi poloviny XIX – nachala XX veka) [The Inte-rior of Armenian Folk Dwellings (based on materials from the sec-ond half of the XIX – early XX century)]. Moscow: MIE 1984. Pub-lished in HAB 17 (1989): 65-143.

Darveshian, Mamo Kh. Skotovodcheskoe khoziaistvo kurdov v Armenii (po materialam vtoroi poloviny XIX – nachala XX veka) [The Stock-Breeding Economy of the Kurds in Armenia (Based on Materials from the Second Half of the XIX – early XX century)]. Yerevan: IH AAS 1984. Published in Yerevan, 1986.

Ogandzhanian (Ohanjanyan), Ruben, S. Mezhlichnostnye natsional‘nye otnosheniia v gorodakh Armianskoi SSR (na materialakh etnosotsi-ologicheskykh issledovanii) [Inter-personal National Relations among the City-Dwellers of the Armenian SSR (Based on Materials from Ethno-sociological Surveys)]. Moscow: MIE 1985.

Nagapetian [Nahapetyan], Rafik A. Sem‘ia i semeinaia obriadnost‘ u armian Akhdznika (vtoraia polovina XIX – nachalo XX v.) [Family and Rit-ual Life among the Armenians of Aghdznik (Second Half of the XIX – Early XX century)]. Yerevan IH AAS 1986.

Saakian [Sahakyan], Artsruni S. Kul‘tovo-memorial‘nye pamiatniki v sisteme armianskoi srednevekovoi narodnoi kul‘tury [Monuments of Wor-ship and Memory in the System of Medieval Armenian Folk Cul-ture]. Yerevan IH AAS 1986.

Sarkisian [Sargsyan], Gamlet [Hamlet] G. Etnicheskii sostav naseleniia Vostochnoi Armenii i ego dinamika v XIX – nachale XX vv. (v prede-lakh Armianskoi SSR) (etnodemograficheskoe issledovanie) [The Ethnic Composition of the Population of Eastern Armenia and its Dynamics in the XIX – early XX century (Inside the Borders of the Armenian SSR) (An Ethno-Demographic Study)]. Yerevan IH ASS 1987. Published as: Sarkisian 2002.

Arzumanian, Alla A. Udiny. Voprosy etnicheskoi istorii i kul’tury (is-toriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie) [The Udis: Issues of Ethnic

APPENDIX 1 317

History and Culture (Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1987.

Mkrtchian, Artur A. Obshchestvennyi byt armian Nagornogo Karabakha (vtoraia polovina XIX – nachalo XX veka) [The Social Life of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh (Second Half of the XIX – Early XX century)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1988. Published as Mkrtchian 2010.

1990s Kharatsidis, Elefterii K. Khoziaistvennyi byt i material‘naia kul‘tura gre-

cheskogo naseleniia Vostochnoi Armenii vo vtoroi polovine XIX – nachale XX veka. (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie) [The Economic Life and Material Culture of the Greek Population of East Armenia in the Second Half of the XIX – Early XX Century (A His-torical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1990.

Gasparian, Aramais O. Pchelovodstvo v Armenii (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie) [Apiculture in Armenia (A Historical-Ethnographical Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1990. Published in Armenian as: “Meghvapahutyune Hahastanum”. Yerevan 1989.

Petrosian, Emma Kh. Ritual‘no-mifologicheskaia i teatral‘no-zrelishchnaia sistema armian [Mytho-Ritual and the Theatre Complex of the Ar-menians]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1990.

Zakarian, Bella E. Sistema rodstva u armian [The Kinship System of the Armenians]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1990.

Galstian, Migran V. Sovremennoe otkhodnichestvo v Armianskoi SSR (et-nosotsiologicheskoe issledovanie) [Modern Seasonal Labour Migra-tion in the Armenian SSR (An Ethno-Sociological Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1990. Published in Armenian as: Artagnatsutyune Hayas-tanum (19-rd d. yerkrord kes – 1980-akan tt.). HAB 26 (2009): 7-88.

*Atoian, Karlen P. Narodnye traditsii fizicheskoi kul‘tury u armian s drev-neishikh vremen do kontsa XIX veka (istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie) [Popular Traditions in the Physical Culture of the Ar-menians from Antiquity to the End of the XIX Century (A Histori-cal-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS.

Poghosyan, Svetlana H. Shiraki ev Javakhki hayots avandutayin taraze (XIXd. verj – XX d. skizb) [Armenian Traditional Costume in Shirak and Javakhk (Late XIX – Early XX Century)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1994.

Tadevosyan, Aghasi Z. Darbine hayots tzisakargum (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [The Blacksmith in Armenian Ritual Life (A His-


torical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1994. Published in: HAB 23 (2007): 101-183.

*Vardanian, Rafik H. Hayastani chapern u kshirnere (V-XV dd.) [Armenian Measures and Weights (V-XV Century)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1994.

*Odabashian, Asia A. Hayots zhoghovrdakan havataliqnere (kazme ev tzisakarge) [Armenian Folk Beliefs (Structure and Ritual)]. Yere-van: IAE AAS 1995.

Minasyan, Anahit M. Shiraki ev Javakhqi hayots zhoghovrdakan bzhshku-tyune (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [Armenian Folk Medicine in Shirak and Javakhk (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1995.

*Petrosyan, Anushavan S. Dzknorsutyune Arevelyan Hayastanum [Fishing in East Armenia]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1996.

Stepanyan, Armenuhi A. Hay zhoghovrdakan tarazi zardanakhsheri kho-rhrdimaste (tzisayin, gunayin, nshanayin hamakargere) [Semantics of Ornamentation of the Armenian Folk Costume (Ritual, Colour, and Semiotic Systems). Yerevan: IAE AAS 1996. Published in: HAB 22 (2007): 7-128.

Mkrtchyan, Samvel Zh. Hayastani Hanrapetutyan bnakchutian ardi tonat-zisakan hamakarge (etnosotsiologiakan hetazotutyun) [The Modern Festival-Ritual System of the Population of the Republic of Armenia (An Ethno-Sociological Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1997. Pub-lished as: Tonere hayots ardi kentsaghum (etnosotsiologiakan usum-nasirutyun). HAB 22 (2007): 130-237.

*Ter-Sarkisian, Alla E. Armiane: Istoriia i etnokul‘turnye protsessy [The Armenians: History and Ethno-Cultural Processes]. Moscow: MIE 1997. Published as: Ter-Sarkisiants 1998.

Avagyan, Nazik K. Hayots Zhoghovrdakan taraze XIX d. – XX d. skzbin (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [Armenian Folk Costume in the XIX – Early XX Centuries (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yer-evan: IAE AAS 1998.

Hobosyan, Suren G. Hayots dzithanutyan mshakuyte XIX d. yerkrord – XX d. arajin kesin (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [Armenian Oil Ex-traction Culture from the Second Half of the XIX to the First Half of the XX Century (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 1998. Published in: HAB 23 (2007): 7-99.

2000s Margaryan, Nikol M. Andznanvan entrutyune arevelahayots mej (XIX-XX

dd.) (azgabanakan usumnasirutyun) [Selection of Personal Names

APPENDIX 1 319

among the East Armenians (XIX-XX Centuries) (An Ethnological Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2000.

Dabaghyan, Artak A. Hayots zinanshanayin hamakargi hasarakakan ev tzisakan arumnere II (BC) – XIII (AD) dd. (patmamshakutayin heta-zotutyun) [Social and Ritual Patterns of Armenian Heraldic System from the II B.C. – XIII A.D. Century (A Historical-Cultural Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2001.

Gabrielyan, Mkhitar R. Hasarakakan ev mshakutayin gortzentatsnere HH ardi giughum (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [Social and Cul-tural Processes in a Modern Village of the Republic of Armenia (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2001. Pub-lished as: Haykakan giughe antsumayin shrjanum [An Armenian Village in Transition] Yerevan 2001.

Bazeyan, Karine G. Hayots Aseghnagortzakan mshakuyte (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [Armenian Embroidery Culture (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan 2002.

Sargsyan, Armine Kh. Kanants veraberogh avandakan argelanqnere hayots mej (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [Traditional Taboos Related to Women among the Armenians (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2002.

Cholakian, Hakob M. Antiochi merdzaka Routchi hovti hayere (patmazga-grakan usoumnasirutyun) [Armenians of the Routch Valley near An-tioch (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2002.

Arakelova, Viktoria A. Yezidskii panteon [The Yezidi Pantheon]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2002.

Hakobyan, Arsen A. Tatakhos hayere [The Tat-Speaking Armenians]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2002.

Zaryan, Armanda R. Kine iranakan avandakan kentsaghum [Women in Traditional Iranian Culture]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2003.

Khachatryan, Armenak S. Boshaner. Patmazgagrakan usoumnasirutyun [The Boshas: A Historical-Ethnographic Survey]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2003.

Poghosyan, Ashkhunj, A. Hayots gorgagortzakan mshakuyte (patmazgagra-kan usumnasirutyun) [Armenian Carpet-Weaving Culture (A His-torical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2003.

Markosyan, Artak M. Hayastani Hanrapetutyan bnakchutyan teghasharz-here 1989-2001 tt. (etno-zhoghovrdagrakan hetazotutyun) [Migra-tions of the Population in the Republic of Armenia from 1989-2001 (An Ethno-Demographical Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2004.

Zolyan, Mikael S. Gharabaghyan himnahartse vorpes adrbejantsineri patmakan hishoghutyan ev azgayin inqnagitaktsutyan dzevavorman


gortzon (Adrbejani petakan azgayn qaghaqakanutyan hayetsakargi verlutzutyun [The Karabakh Problem as a Factor in the Formation of the Historical Memory and National Consciousness of Azerbaijanis (An Analysis of the State Concept in National Policy of Azerbai-jan)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2005.

*Vardanian, Liliia M. Vklad Stepana Lisitsiani v razvitie armianskoi et-nografii [Stephan Lisitsian’s Contribution to the Development of Armenian Ethnography]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2005. Published as: Vardanian 2005.

Sargsyan, Amalia R. Paytamshakutyan arheste hayots mej XIX-XX dd. (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [The Craft of Woodworking among the Armenians in the XIX-XX Century (A Historical-Ethnographic Study)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2005.

Israelyan, Astghik R. Pahpanaknere hayots zhoghovrdakan havataliqneri hamakargum [Amulets in the System of Armenian Folk Beliefs]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2006.

Pikichyan, Hripsime V. Erazhshtutyune ev erazhishte hayots avandakan artnin ev tzisakan kyanqum [Music and the Musician in Armenian Traditional Everyday and Ritual Life]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2006.

Antonian, Iuliia Iu. Magicheskoe tselitel‘stvo i gadanie v Armenii (po mate-rialam XX veka) [Magical Healing and Divination in Armenia (Data from the XX Century)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2007.

Stepanyan, Gohar Yu. Hayots tonakan varqayin hamakarge (est 19-rd dari verji – 20-rd dari skzbi azgagrakan niuteri) [The System of Festive Behaviour of the Armenians (Based on Ethnographical Materials from the Late 19th to the Early 20th Century]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2007.

*Marutyan, Harutyun T. Kolektiv ev patmakan hishoghutyune hayots inqnut-yan hamatekstum (est XX dari patma-azgagrakan nyuteri) [Collec-tive and Historical Memory in the Context of Armenian National Identity (Based on Historical-Ethnographic Materials from the XX century)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS. Published as: Marutyan 2009.

*Nahapetyan, Rafik A. Aghdznikahayeri amusnaharsanekan sovoruytnern u tzesere (patmazgagrakan usumnasirutyun) [Wedding Ceremonies and Rituals among the Armenians of Aghdznik (Ethno-Historical Research)]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2008.

Boyajyan, Artashes G. Leninakan-Gyumri. Bnakchutyan sharzhentatse 1950-2000 tt. [Leninakan-Gyumri: Population Movements 1950-2000]. Yerevan: IAE AAS 2008.

APPENDIX 1 321

Shagoian, Gaiane A. Invarianty i transformatsiia v armianskoi svad‘be [Invariants and Transformation in the Armenian Wedding]. Yere-van: IAE AAS 2009.

Abbreviations

IH AAS — Institute of History of the Armenian Academy of Sciences (National Academy of Sciences of Armenia) FH MSU — Faculty of History at Moscow State University HAB — Hay Azgagrutyun ev Banahyusutyun (nyuter ev usumnasirutyun-ner) [Armenian Ethnography and Folklore (Materials and Studies)], Yerevan IAE AAS — Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Armenian Academy of Sciences IHAE GAS — Institute of History, Archaeology, and Ethnography of the Georgian Academy of Sciences LIOE — St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Department of the Institute of Ethnog-raphy and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences IE — Institute of Ethnography and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences MKAEN — International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographical Sciences TIE — Trudy Instituta Etnografii

Dabaghyan Artak, Salvage vs. Knowledge: Armenian Ethnography Across the Soviet Times. – F....

Documents

Transcript of Dabaghyan Artak, Salvage vs. Knowledge: Armenian Ethnography Across the Soviet Times. – F....